I think what you will see is more of the bleed over in tube shape from the EVO. That is what they have done so far, you can sit the two frames together and see what they have learned from the EVO shaping has translated to the CAAD10. I hope they do not change too much, because I like my CAAD10, but would like another one. We were looking into the EVOs for next season, but I will need to garner more sponsors for our race series to justify the added cost of getting carbon. If I can't, then I will still be on the CAAD10, solid platform.

HUMP

_________________Why are the best things in life always the ones you start last?

As a mechanic who has to deal with the problematic PF30 system, I'm curious, why do you as a consumer want to see PF30 in an aluminum frame?

Is it that much more problematic than BB30?

Anyway, I'm thinking in terms of user serviceability. With BB30, anytime I need to replace bearings, I can either take it to a shop, or do it at home. As someone who genuinely likes doing work on my own/at home, dealing with BB30 incurs a higher penalty for failure - once the BB shell is far enough out of spec, that's it, frame is more or less toast. (And if Cdale finds out I did it, I'm likely out of a warranty, regardless of how thorough a job I may have done.) On the other hand, PF30 is easier to manufacture on Cannondales part, and easier for me to work on if it's way more likely that the cups will get trashed before the BB shell does. But, that's just me. I mean, external BSA would be best for home serviceability, but if the industry is pushing/consumers are buying 30 mm spindles, bigger BB shells, and press in bearings, I want the 'lesser of two evils.'

I tend to be skeptical and suspicious. I always thought the reason for the CAAD10 was tied to the move away from American manufacturing. Also think Canondale has a specific market in mind for the CAAD and that means pricing it below their carbon frames aiming it at people on a budget or racers who want something more crash worthy. In either case there's a limit to how much they'll develop this frame, but if someone can come up with a way to engineer some more costs out of the frame you'll get a CAAD 11. I've always believed the move away from threaded bottom brackets, integrated headsets and sloping tubes were more to save the builder money than to offer the buyer a better bike.

fromtrektocolnago, some of what you say may be true, but as someone who has ridden every CAAD frame from the CAAD 3 through the CAAD 10, the 10 is the best CAAD frame Cannondale has ever built. The CAAD 10 was also the basis on which the EVO was built. Many think it is the other way around, but Cannondale developed the CAAD 10 first then the same engineers set out to make the EVO. So with the CAAD 10 Cannondale accomplished two things, Built it cheaper to keep the pricepoint the same and they built a better bike.

Now what a CAAD 11 will look like is uncertain as there is still a lot of life left in the CAAD 10 design.

The fact that there is a CAAD10 disc leads me to believe it isn't being replaced in the next model year or two. What would be the point of introducing a brand new frame/fork and then replacing it within a year?

There have been rumors of an new Aluminum CX bike using some of the advances from the CAAD10, that might be next in the release line-up.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum